Wittgensteinian Fideism…Let me speak please
It seems that Wittgensteinian Fideism had a point that I agreed with. The second thesis that religious belief can only be understood by religious believers rings true to me. Philips argues this point, yet his reasons such as a person praying from problems that arise in relationships with other people would be understood by a person that is nonreligious as a counter example is not sufficientto prove that the nonbelieverver understands the religious belief but may in fact be that he understands that they both have relationship problems and have different manners in which they address those issues. Philips also uses the idea of one rejecting atheism or a religious belief after seeing the kind of thing it is, because they did not live according to certain or such beliefs. This also does not say the atheist understands religious belief but in fact be that each one differs to why they believe because they are different in nature. The believer can say he understands the atheist because at one point he was without God but the atheist could not say I understand what you believe because I was once a believer, this is contradictory!! Did the atheist misplace his belief? If you say that you once believed then you subsequently say you don’t, there is subsequent doubt as to your belief in the first place and also that you understood what you believed in the first place, in my opinion. Lastly he says that true believers say that obedience to God is a form of understanding and so one can conclude that if one does not obey God, he must lack that understanding. But, Philips says a philosopher can comprehend the difference between religious understanding and its implication on obedience to God and how it differs to other forms of obedience, without the philosopher being a believer or obedient to God himself. This point is significant due to the fact that Philips uses the words true believers. It is important to understand that what lies in the mind of a true believer is thought to be in effect the mind of Christ or the mind of Buddha, the starting point of two major religious schools of thought. If a true believer can be understood so easily as Philips contests why are Christ’s or Buddhas’ words so often misunderstood, misrepresented or even not even revealed to the minds of the masses to this day? Is it not true that many do not actually understand and it is proven by their actions of disobedience. I think Jesus emphasized this point when he said, “W ho hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear,” (Matthew 13:9-16)
